Supreme Court, Congress, citizens: The debate over who should define marriage

In this Oct. 1, 2012, file photo shows the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington. The high court can choose from a wide array of outcomes in ruling on California's Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage and the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The cases will be argued Tuesday, March 26, 2013, and Wednesday; rulings are not likely before late June.

Carolyn Kaster, ASSOCIATED PRESS

Summary

The Supreme Court decided to hear and will in the next two weeks issue decisions on two cases that deal with the meaning of marriage in the U.S.

The Supreme Court decided to hear and will in the next two weeks issue decisions on two cases that deal with the meaning of marriage in the U.S., and according to Ryan T. Anderson in an article on the Blaze, the government does not have an interest in marriage because it is concerned with the love lives of its citizens, it is interested in marriage “because the act that unites a man and a woman creates new life. And this new life needs and deserves a mother and a father because otherwise, the social costs run high.”

The first case deals with the federal Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, which defines marriage for the purpose of federal law. Passed by Congress and signed by then-President Bill Clinton, it clearly states that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

Similarly, the second is about California’s Proposition 8, approved by voters in 2008, defining marriage for state purposes as the union between one man and one woman.

At stake in these two cases is the question of who has the constitutional authority to “make laws that reflect the truth about marriage.”

According to Anderson, “Some have argued that Congress lacks authority to make marriage policy for federal purposes and that it has to accept whatever definition of marriage the states come up with.” In addition, “some try to argue that whats really unconstitutional isnt Congress making this law, but anyone making a law that tells the truth about marriage.”

But in Andersons opinion, “Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife, to be father and mother to any children their union produces,” and that “whatever any individual American thinks about marriage, the courts shouldnt be redefining it. Marriage policy should be worked out through the democratic process, not dictated by unelected judges in an activist decision that has no grounding in the text or logic of our Constitution.”

Soooooo according to this article, if a man and a woman cannot have children
then their marriage is a sham? Interesting.

1:07 a.m. June 15, 2013

Top comment

Moderate

Salt Lake City, UT

The Supreme Court is not interested in these marriage cases "because the act
that unites a man and a woman creates new life." They are interested in
these cases because the act is a legal contract that creates new rights.